DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 01/29/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6, 8-13 & 15-21 are pending in the application. Claims 7 & 14 are cancelled. Claim 21 is entered as “New”.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 21, a period (.) should be placed at the end of the claim
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claim 20, applicant has failed to show possession of the claimed invention by failing to provide sufficient detail needed to understand what the invention is and how it works. Applicant claims the ferromagnetic feature and the electromagnetic field are configured to generate a magnetic reluctance-based linear force on the rider assembly. This raises questions to what applicant had possession of, in that neither the specification nor the drawings, or a combination thereof, adequately describe a linear force based on magnetic reluctance.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize magnetic reluctance is the ratio of magnetomotive force to magnetic flux. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude a force cannot be based on magnetic reluctance, but rather magnetic reluctance is based on a particular magnetic force. Additionally, the original disclosure has not provided any definitions or logic which would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude a linear force is created by or based on a magnetic reluctance, resulting in a lack of written description for the claimed limitation, and resulting in the limitation being new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-10 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to Claim 1, the limitation “the bearing including a second bearing surface in contact with the second cylinder wall”, in Lines 10-12, is indefinite. A second cylinder wall has not been previously defined. A second side wall was defined in Line 9. As such, it is not clear if the limitation is a typo, where Applicant meant for “the second cylinder wall” to be the second side wall, or if Applicant is attempting to define a new term, rendering the limitation indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the bearing including a second bearing surface in contact with the second side wall.
As to Claim 5, the limitation “the piston includes a first bearing surface”, is indefinite. A first bearing surface was defined in Claim 1, Lines 5-6. As such, it is not clear if the bearing surface in Claim 5 is the same first bearing surface as in Claim 1, or if the respective bearings surfaces are separate structures, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the first bearing surface in Claim 5 will be interpreted as the same first bearing surface defined in Claim 1.
As to Claim 20, the limitation “the ferromagnetic feature and the electromagnetic field are configured to generate a magnetic reluctance to impart linear force on the rider assembly”, in Lines 4-7, is indefinite. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize magnetic reluctance is the ratio of magnetomotive force to magnetic flux. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude a force cannot be based on magnetic reluctance, but rather magnetic reluctance is based on a particular magnetic force. Additionally, the original disclosure has not provided any definitions or logic which would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude a linear force is created by or based on a magnetic reluctance. As such, it is not clear how a linear force is capable of be based on magnetic reluctance, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as the ferromagnetic feature and the electromagnetic field are configured to generate a magnetic reluctance to affect a linear force on the rider assembly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11, 16, 19 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lilie (U.S. PGPub 2005/0123422), as evidenced by Beale (U.S. Patent 5,525,845).
As to Claim 11, Lilie teaches a linear compressor system (Figure 2), comprising:
a stationary assembly including:
a first cylinder (1) having a first cylinder wall (the first side wall shown in Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection below) extending along (as shown in Figure 2) a first cylindrical axis (the dashed line extending up and down through the center of linkage 50, as viewed in Figure 2), and
a second cylinder (the bearing cylinder shown in Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection below) having a second cylinder wall (the second side wall shown in Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection below) extending along (as shown in Figure 2) a second cylindrical axis (the dashed line extending up and down through the center of linkage 50, as viewed in Figure 2, where the first and second cylindrical axes are colinear) parallel to (since the first and second cylindrical axes are colinear, one of ordinary skill in the art would also conclude the axes are parallel) the first cylindrical axis (the dashed line extending up and down through the center of linkage 50, as viewed in Figure 2); and
a rider assembly (at least 2/3/5/6/40/44/50) movable along (Paragraph 0013) a linear path (the dashed line extending up and down through the center of linkage 50, as viewed in Figure 2, where the first cylindrical axis, the second cylindrical axis, and the linear path are colinear) parallel to (since the first cylindrical axis and the linear path are colinear, one of ordinary skill in the art would also conclude the first cylindrical axis and the linear path are parallel) the first cylindrical axis (the dashed line extending up and down through the center of linkage 50, as viewed in Figure 2), the rider assembly (at least 2/3/5/6/40/44/50) including:
a piston (2) disposed within (as shown in Figure 2) the first cylinder (1), the piston (2) including a first bearing surface (see Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection below) in contact with (as shown in Figure 2) the first cylinder wall (the first side wall shown in Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection below),
a bearing (3) disposed within (as shown in Figure 2) the second cylinder (the bearing cylinder shown in Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection below), the bearing (3) including a second bearing surface (see Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection below) in contact with (see end of paragraph for clarification) the second cylinder wall (the second side wall shown in Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection below), and
a linkage (50) mechanically coupling (as shown in Figure 2; Paragraphs 0021/0023) the piston (2) to the bearing (3),
wherein the first bearing surface (see Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection below) is separated from (as shown in Figure 2) the second bearing surface (see Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection below) by a gap (the gap between the first and second bearing surfaces shown in Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection below) spanning a direction perpendicular to (left and right, as viewed in Figure 2) the linear path (the dashed line extending up and down through the center of linkage 50, as viewed in Figure 2, where the first cylindrical axis, the second cylindrical axis, and the linear path are colinear).
Paragraph 0021 describes minimizing radial forces to the piston caused by transversal displacement of the mounting element 40. Mounting element 40 is rigidly attached to actuating means 3 via rigid elements 44, as described in Paragraph 0023. Beale Column 1, Lines 17-38, discusses how reciprocating bodies become misaligned with the cylinders the reciprocating bodies reciprocate within due to imperfections during the manufacturing process. These misalignments result in the reciprocating bodies contacting the respective cylinders, causing friction and wear. In light of the misalignments, as evidenced by Beale, and the transversal movement caused by the flexible nature of linkage 50 described by Lilie, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the second bearing surface contacts the second side wall --due to imperfections in the manufacturing process-- during operation when linkage 50 flexes, causing bearing 3 to transverse radially.
As to Claim 16, Lilie teaches all the limitations of Claim 11, and continues to teach the first cylinder wall (the first side wall shown in Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection below) of the first cylinder (1) is disposed radially inward from (as shown in Figure 2) the second cylinder wall (the second side wall shown in Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection below) of the second cylinder (the bearing cylinder shown in Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection below) and wherein the first cylindrical axis (the dashed line extending up and down through the center of linkage 50, as viewed in Figure 2) and the second cylindrical axis (the dashed line extending up and down through the center of linkage 50, as viewed in Figure 2, where the first and second cylindrical axes are colinear) are concentrically aligned (as shown in Figure 2, and as defined in the Claim 11 rejection above).
As to Claim 19, Lilie teaches all the limitations of Claim 11, and continues to teach the linkage (50) includes a laterally compliant rod (Figure 2 shows Element 50 as a rod) configured to transfer axial forces parallel to the linear path (the dashed line extending up and down through the center of linkage 50, as viewed in Figure 2, where the first cylindrical axis, the second cylindrical axis, and the linear path are colinear). Lilie Paragraph 0021 describes linkage 50 as transmitting “the axial forces between the piston and the mounting element and to minimize the application of radial forces to the piston”. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude Lilie linkage 50 transmits forces in the axial direction –where the axial forces are inherently parallel to the defined linear path--, as described in Lilie Paragraph 0021. Instant application Paragraph 0078 defines the term “compliant” as “bendable and unable to deliver force”. Since Lilie Paragraph 0021 describes Lilie linkage 50 as minimizing radial forces, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude Lilie linkage 50 is “bendable and unable to deliver force”.
As to Claim 21, Lilie teaches all the limitations of Claim 11, and continues to teach side load forces (the radial forces described in Lilie Paragraph 0021, and the forces resulting from the second bearing surface contacting the second side wall during operation) are distributed between (one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the forces are distributed between the first and second bearing surfaces since the two side load forces are defined as the forces acting on the first and second bearing surfaces) the first bearing surface (see Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection below) and the second bearing surface (see Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 8-9 & 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lilie (U.S. PGPub 2005/0123422), as evidenced by Beale (U.S. Patent 5,525,845), in view of Goldowsky (U.S. Patent 4,675,563), further in view of Han (CN106678012A – see previously attached translation).
As to Claim 1, Lilie teaches a linear compressor (Figure 2), comprising:
a piston cylinder (1) having a first diameter (see Figure 2 below) and extending along (as shown in Figure 2) a first cylindrical axis (the dashed line extending up and down through the center of linkage 50, as viewed in Figure 2), the piston cylinder (1) including a first side wall (see Figure 2 below);
a piston (2) disposed within (as shown in Figure 2) the piston cylinder (1), the piston (2) movable along (Paragraph 0013) the first cylindrical axis (the dashed line extending up and down through the center of linkage 50, as viewed in Figure 2) within (as shown in Figure 2) the piston cylinder (1), the piston (2) including a first bearing surface (see Figure 2 below) in contact with (as shown in Figure 2) the first side wall (see Figure 2 below) of the piston cylinder (1);
a bearing cylinder (see Figure 2 below) having a second diameter (see Figure 2 below) and extending along (as shown in Figure 2) a second cylindrical axis (the dashed line extending up and down through the center of linkage 50, as viewed in Figure 2, where the first and second cylindrical axes are colinear), the bearing cylinder (see Figure 2 below) including a second side wall (see Figure 2 below);
a bearing (3) disposed within (as shown in Figure 2) the bearing cylinder (see Figure 2 below), the bearing (3) movable along the second cylindrical axis (the dashed line extending up and down through the center of linkage 50, as viewed in Figure 2, where the first and second cylindrical axes are colinear) within (as shown in Figure 2) the bearing cylinder (see Figure 2 below), the bearing (3) including a second bearing surface (see Figure 2 below) in contact with (see end of paragraph for clarification) the second side wall (see Figure 2 below; see 112(b) rejection above for interpretation clarification), wherein side load forces (the radial forces described in Lilie Paragraph 0021, and the forces resulting from the second bearing surface contacting the second side wall during operation) are distributed between (one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the forces are distributed between the first and second bearing surfaces since the two side load forces are defined as the forces acting on the first and second bearing surfaces) the first bearing surface (see Figure 2 below) and the second bearing surface (see Figure 2 below);
a linkage (50) mechanically coupling (as shown in Figure 2; Paragraphs 0021/0023) the piston (2) to the bearing (3);
a motor stator (see Figure 2 below); and
a magnet (4) configured to interact with (Paragraph 0013) the motor stator (see Figure 2 below) to impart linear force on (as described in Paragraph 0013, where the linear force is the linear motor axially impelling magnet 4) the piston (2),
wherein the second diameter (see Figure 2 below) is greater than (as shown in Figure 2 below) the first diameter (see Figure 2 below).
Paragraph 0021 describes minimizing radial forces to the piston caused by transversal displacement of the mounting element 40. Mounting element 40 is rigidly attached to actuating means 3 via rigid elements 44, as described in Paragraph 0023. Beale Column 1, Lines 17-38, discusses how reciprocating bodies become misaligned with the cylinders the reciprocating bodies reciprocate within due to imperfections during the manufacturing process. These misalignments result in the reciprocating bodies contacting the respective cylinders, causing friction and wear. In light of the misalignments, as evidenced by Beale, and the transversal movement caused by the flexible nature of linkage 50 described by Lilie, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the second bearing surface contacts the second side wall --due to imperfections in the manufacturing process-- during operation when linkage 50 flexes, causing bearing 3 to transverse radially.
PNG
media_image1.png
684
761
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lilie Figure 2, Modified by Examiner
Lilie is silent on how the linear motor interacts with magnet 4 to impart the linear force axially impelling magnet 4, so does not explicitly teach the motor stator generates an electromagnetic field. Lilie is also silent on the material makeup of magnet 4, so does not explicitly teach ferromagnetic feature --magnet 4-- is ferromagnetic.
Goldowsky describes a linear motor, and teaches the motor stator (12) generates an electromagnetic field. Column 1, Lines 19-34, describes the concept of an electromagnetic linear motor, where electrical current is sent through a coil to create an electromagnetic field –magnetic flux—to interact with an actuator of the linear motor to create a reciprocating linear force causing the actuator to reciprocate. Column 3, Lines 56-66 describes coils 30/32 as being part of stator 12. As such, motor stator 12 generates an electromagnetic field which interacts with magnets 50 to cause the magnets, and via yoke 20, cause piston 16 to reciprocate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the motor stator, as taught by Lilie, generate electromagnetic fields, as taught by Goldowsky, to drive a piston (Column 1, Lines 30-34). Additionally, the use of electromagnetism in linear motors is well-known, and yields predictable results, i.e., creates linear reciprocation.
Han describes an electromagnetic linear pump, and teaches the magnet (10/11) is ferromagnetic (neodymium iron boron permanent magnet material; Paragraph 0030, where one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize iron is what defines ferrous materials).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the magnet, as taught by Lilie, as modified, be ferromagnetic, as taught by Han, since neodymium iron boron is a “high magnetic energy product (Paragraph 0030).”
As to Claim 2, Lilie, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the second cylindrical axis (the dashed line extending up and down through the center of Lilie linkage 50, as viewed in Lilie Figure 2, where the first and second cylindrical axes are colinear) is concentrically aligned with (as shown in Lilie Figure 2, and as defined in the Claim 1 rejection above) the first cylindrical axis (the dashed line extending up and down through the center of Lilie linkage 50, as viewed in Lilie Figure 2), and wherein the piston cylinder (Lilie 1) is disposed radially inward from (as shown in Lilie Figure 2) the bearing cylinder (see Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection above) relative to the first cylindrical axis (the dashed line extending up and down through the center of Lilie linkage 50, as viewed in Lilie Figure 2).
As to Claim 3, Lilie, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the motor stator (see Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection above) is disposed radially outward from (as shown in Lilie Figure 2) the second side wall (as shown in Lilie Figure 2) of the bearing cylinder (as shown in Lilie Figure 2) and wherein the ferromagnetic feature (Lilie 4, modified by Han) is secured to (as shown in Lilie Figure 2) the bearing (Lilie 3).
As to Claim 4, Lilie, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the motor stator (see Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection above) is disposed radially inward from (as shown in Lilie Figure 2) the bearing cylinder (as shown in Lilie Figure 2).
As to Claim 5, Lilie, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the piston (Lilie 2) includes a first bearing surface (see Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection above), wherein both the motor stator (see Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection above) and the ferromagnetic feature (Lilie 4, modified by Han) are disposed radially outward from (as shown in Lilie Figure 2) the first bearing surface (see Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection above).
As to Claim 8, Lilie, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the linkage (Lilie 50) includes a compliant rod (Lilie Figure 2 shows Lilie Element 50 as a rod) to transfer force in an axial direction and compliant in a lateral direction. Lilie Paragraph 0021 describes linkage 50 as transmitting “the axial forces between the piston and the mounting element and to minimize the application of radial forces to the piston”. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude Lilie linkage 50 transmits forces in the axial direction, as described in Lilie Paragraph 0021. Instant application Paragraph 0078 defines the term “compliant” as “bendable and unable to deliver force”. Since Lilie Paragraph 0021 describes Lilie linkage 50 as minimizing radial forces, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude Lilie linkage 50 is “bendable and unable to deliver force”.
As to Claim 9, Lilie, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and continues to teach the piston (Lilie 2) includes a first outer surface (see Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection above) and wherein the bearing (Lilie 3) includes a second outer surface (see Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection above), wherein the first outer surface (see Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection above) is separated from (as shown in Lilie Figure 2) the second outer surface (see Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection above).
As to Claim 12, Lilie teaches all the limitations of Claim 11, and continues to teach the stationary assembly includes a motor stator (see Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection above), and
the rider assembly (at least 2/3/5/6/40/44/50) includes a magnet (4) configured to interact with (Paragraph 0013) the motor stator (see Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection above) to impart linear force on (as described in Paragraph 0013, where the linear force is the linear motor axially impelling magnet 4) the rider assembly (at least 2/3/5/6/40/44/50).
Lilie is silent on how the linear motor interacts with magnet 4 to impart the linear force axially impelling magnet 4, so does not explicitly teach the motor stator generates an electromagnetic field. Lilie is also silent on the material makeup of magnet 4, so does not explicitly teach ferromagnetic feature --magnet 4-- is ferromagnetic.
Goldowsky describes a linear motor, and teaches the motor stator (12) generates an electromagnetic field. Column 1, Lines 19-34, describes the concept of an electromagnetic linear motor, where electrical current is sent through a coil to create an electromagnetic field –magnetic flux—to interact with an actuator of the linear motor to create a reciprocating linear force causing the actuator to reciprocate. Column 3, Lines 56-66 describes coils 30/32 as being part of stator 12. As such, motor stator 12 generates an electromagnetic field which interacts with magnets 50 to cause the magnets, and via yoke 20, cause piston 16 to reciprocate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the motor stator, as taught by Lilie, generate electromagnetic fields, as taught by Goldowsky, to drive a piston (Column 1, Lines 30-34). Additionally, the use of electromagnetism in linear motors is well-known, and yields predictable results, i.e., creates linear reciprocation.
Han describes an electromagnetic linear pump, and teaches the magnet (10/11) is ferromagnetic (neodymium iron boron permanent magnet material; Paragraph 0030, where one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize iron is what defines ferrous materials).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the magnet, as taught by Lilie, as modified, be ferromagnetic, as taught by Han, since neodymium iron boron is a “high magnetic energy product (Paragraph 0030).”
As to Claim 13, Lilie teaches all the limitations of Claims 11-12, and continues to teach the ferromagnetic feature (Lilie 4, modified by Han) is secured to (as shown in Lilie Figure 2) the bearing (Lilie 3) and the motor stator (see Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection above) is secured to (as shown in Lilie Figure 2) the second cylinder (the bearing cylinder shown in Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection above).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lilie, in view of Goldowsky, further in view of Han, as evidence by electrical4u.com (see Magnetic Reluctance_ What is it_ (Formula, Units & Applications) _ Electrical4U pdf from electrical4u.com/magnetic-reluctance/#google_vignette).
As to Claim 20, Lilie teaches all the limitations of Claim 11, and continues to teach the stationary assembly includes a motor stator (see Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection above), and
the rider assembly (at least 2/3/5/6/40/44/50) includes a magnet (4).
Lilie is silent on how the linear motor interacts with magnet 4 to impart the linear force axially impelling magnet 4, so does not explicitly teach the motor stator generates an electromagnetic field. Lilie is also silent on the material makeup of magnet 4, so does not explicitly teach ferromagnetic feature --magnet 4-- is ferromagnetic.
Goldowsky describes a linear motor, and teaches the motor stator (12) generates an electromagnetic field. Column 1, Lines 19-34, describes the concept of an electromagnetic linear motor, where electrical current is sent through a coil to create an electromagnetic field –magnetic flux—to interact with an actuator of the linear motor to create a reciprocating linear force causing the actuator to reciprocate. Column 3, Lines 56-66 describes coils 30/32 as being part of stator 12. As such, motor stator 12 generates an electromagnetic field which interacts with magnets 50 to cause the magnets, and via yoke 20, cause piston 16 to reciprocate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the motor stator, as taught by Lilie, generate electromagnetic fields, as taught by Goldowsky, to drive a piston (Column 1, Lines 30-34). Additionally, the use of electromagnetism in linear motors is well-known, and yields predictable results, i.e., creates linear reciprocation.
Han describes an electromagnetic linear pump, and teaches the magnet (10/11) is ferromagnetic (neodymium iron boron permanent magnet material; Paragraph 0030, where one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize iron is what defines ferrous materials).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the magnet, as taught by Lilie, as modified, be ferromagnetic, as taught by Han, since neodymium iron boron is a “high magnetic energy product (Paragraph 0030).”
Modifying Goldowsky and Han into Lilie results in the ferromagnetic feature (Lilie 4, as modified by Han above) and the electromagnetic field (Goldowsky Column 1, Lines 19-34) are configured to generate a magnetic reluctance (one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the geometry and permeability of the magnetic circuit created by Lilie, as modified, inherently has a magnetic reluctance which affects the magnetic force created by the combination of the electromagnetic field on the ferromagnetic feature, as evidenced by electrical4u.com) to affect (see 112(b) rejection above for interpretation clarification) a linear force (the force described in Goldowsky Column 1, Lines 19-34) on the rider assembly (at least Lilie 2/3/5/6/40/44/50).
Claims 10 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lilie, in view of Goldowsky, further in view of Han, further in view of Hahn (U.S. PGPub 2017/0211562).
As to Claim 10, Lilie, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, but is silent on the percentages of the side load force on the bearing, so does not explicitly teach the second bearing surface receives between 50% and 95% of the side load force.
Hahn describes an electromagnetic linear compressor, and teaches the level of compliance of linkage 200 is a result-effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)) which determines the load –motion transfer, as described in Paragraph 0036—on piston 114. One of ordinary skill in the art would conclude there is a correlation between the forces on the first bearing surface –i.e., the piston—and the second bearing surface, which results in the compliance of linkage 200 also being a result-effective variable which determines load on the second bearing surface.
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the bearing receive between 50% and 95% of the side load force, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (1955)
As to Claim 18, Lilie, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 11, and continues to teach a side load force (the radial forces described in Lilie Paragraph 0021) between the rider assembly (at least Lilie 2/3/5/6/40/44/50) and the stationary assembly (the Lilie cylinders and motor stator shown in Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection above) is distributed between the first bearing surface (see Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection above) and the second bearing surface (see Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection above).
However, Lilie, as modified, is silent on the percentages of the side load force on the second bearing surface, so does not explicitly teach the second bearing surface receives between 50% and 100% of the side load force.
Hahn describes an electromagnetic linear compressor, and teaches the level of compliance of linkage 200 is a result-effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)) which determines the load –motion transfer, as described in Paragraph 0036—on piston 114. One of ordinary skill in the art would conclude there is a correlation between the forces on the first bearing surface –i.e., the piston—and the second bearing surface, which results in the compliance of linkage 200 also being a result-effective variable which determines load on the second bearing surface.
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the bearing receive between 50% and 100% of the side load force, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (1955)
Claims 6 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lilie, in view of Goldowsky, further in view of Han, further in view of Hahn (U.S. PGPub 2015/0226197).
As to Claim 6, Lilie, as modified, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, but is silent on the shape of the ferromagnetic feature. As such, Lilie, as modified, does not explicitly teach the ferromagnetic feature includes a cylindrical magnet fixed to the bearing.
Hahn describes an electromagnetic linear compressor, and teaches the ferromagnetic feature (140) includes a cylindrical (as shown in Figures 3/4) magnet (Paragraph 0041 describes Element 140 as a magnet) fixed to (Paragraph 0041; c the bearing (130).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the ferromagnetic feature/magnet, as taught by Lilie, as modified, be cylindrical, as taught by Hahn, to increase the potential surface area of the magnet, providing a stronger, more consistent magnetic field interaction.
As to Claim 15, Lilie teaches all the limitations of Claim 11, and continues to teach the first bearing surface (see Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection below) of the piston (2) is cylindrical (Lilie Element 1 is described as a cylinder, and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize Lilie piston 2 must also be a cylinder to compress fluid in compression chamber 20. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the first bearing surface as a ring extending off of the outer surface of piston 2, as viewed in Figure 2.
Although one of ordinary skill in the art would most likely conclude the shape of the bearing 3 or magnet 4 is cylindrical in order to operate as intended, Lilie is silent on the shape.
Hahn describes an electromagnetic linear compressor, and teaches the ferromagnetic feature (140) includes a cylindrical (as shown in Figures 3/4) magnet (Paragraph 0041 describes Element 140 as a magnet) fixed to (Paragraph 0041; c the bearing (130).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the ferromagnetic feature/magnet, as taught by Lilie, as modified, be cylindrical, as taught by Hahn, to increase the potential surface area of the magnet, providing a stronger, more consistent magnetic field interaction.
Modifying Hahn into Lilie results in Lile magnet 4 being cylindrical, and the second bearing surface (see Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection below, modified by Hahn to be cylindrical) of the bearing (Lilie 3, as modified) has a larger surface area (see end of paragraph for clarification) than the first bearing surface (see Lilie Figure 2 in the Claim 1 rejection below) of the piston (Lilie 2). When referencing Lilie Figure 2, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the first bearing surface has a shorter length and a smaller diameter than the second bearing surface. Since both surfaces are cylindrical, and the first bearing has a shorter length and a smaller diameter than the second bearing surface, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the second bearing surface must have a larger surface area than the first bearing surface.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lilie, in view of Veprik (U.S. PGPub 2023/0017414).
As to Claim 17, Lilie teaches all the limitations of Claim 11, and continues to teach the piston (2) includes a hollow body (piston 2 is shown as being hollow in Figure 2) with the linkage (50) extending therethrough (as shown in Figure 2).
Lilie is silent on the spacing between the first bearing surface and the first cylinder wall, so does not explicitly teach a clearance seal is disposed between the first bearing surface of the piston and the first cylinder wall.
Veprik describes an electromagnetic linear compressor, and teaches a clearance seal is disposed between (Paragraph 0059) the first bearing surface of the piston (the outer surface of piston liner 58, as shown in Figure 2) and the first cylinder wall (the inner surface of bore liner 54, as shown in Figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a clearance seal, as taught by Veprik, between the first bearing surface of the piston and the first cylinder wall, as taught by Lilie, “to prevent or impede leakage of the gaseous working agent from compression chamber into other regions (Paragraph 0059)”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 102 rejection for Claim 11, Applicant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not conclude the Lilie second bearing surface would contact the second cylinder wall during operation. Applicant requested an evidentiary reference to support Examiner’s opinion.
Examiner provided the evidentiary reference –Beale-- in the above rejection, which shows due to imperfections during the manufacturing process, reciprocating structures within a cylinder will inherently contact the cylinder the reciprocating structure is reciprocating within.
Applicant continues to argue a gap is shown between the second bearing surface and the second side/bearing wall shown in Lilie Figure 2 in the rejection above, which provides proof the second bearing surface does not contact the second side/bearing wall. Examiner disagrees.
As evidenced by Beale above, manufacturing imperfections would lead to the Lilie magnet contacting the Lilie coil during operation. Lilie Figure 2 shows how the Lilie compressor is optimally designed. Lilie Figure 2 is not a reflection on how the Lilie compressor works during operation.
Regarding the 103 rejection for Claim 1, Applicant makes similar arguments as those for Claim 11, regarding the Lilie reference. Again, Examiner has provided an evidentiary reference.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID BRANDT whose telephone number is (303)297-4776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10-6, MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-3383. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID N BRANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783